9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lities as contemplated under Section 248 of the Act and relevant Rules made thereunder. The ROC stated that the action initiated by the Registrar of Companies for striking off of the name of the subject company was triggered due to negligence and lack of due diligence on the part of the Directors of the Company for not discharging their statutory duties in filing the statutory returns within the due date stipulated under the Companies Act and also for not responding to the several periodical notices within the notice period. Therefore, the action of strike off of the name of the company is fully substantiated within the authority under the Provisions of Section 248 of the Act and deserves the protection of this Tribunal. The provisions of Companies Act, 2013, it would be just and equitable to order restoration of the name of the Company in the Register of Companies - the name is restored - application allowed. - Company Appeal/20/KOB/2021 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2022 - Hon ble Mr. Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri. G. Sivasankar, Advocate For the Respondent : None appeared ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struck off and dissolved the company from the Register of Companies invoking Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. It is sated that notices dated 17/5/2018 and 22/6/2018 in form STK-5 were issued to the Appellant. However, the Appellant came to know about it only when the notice dated 1/11/2019 of Striking off and Dissolution was issued. Even now, after sincere efforts, the Appellant could not trace the receipt of the STK-5 Notice mentioned in STK-7, and so the Appellant did not get opportunity to be heard before the strike off order has been passed, or represent before the respondent regarding the reasons for not dissolving the Company. 6 As per Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, at the expiry of the time mentioned in the initial notice, the Registrar may, unless cause to the contrary is shown by the company, strike off its name from the Register of Companies, and shall publish notice thereof in the Official Gazette, and on the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice, the company shall stand dissolved. 7 It is further stated that even though Appellant was not aware of issuance of STK-5 Notice, still it had taken steps to file Annual Returns and Financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2021 stating that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide communication dated 25/6/2019 had instructed all Regional Directors and Registrars of Companies to take strike off action against companies which have failed to file Financial Statements or Annual Returns of two preceding financial years i.e., 2016-17 2017-18 as per Chapter XVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 and have not filed an application under Section 455(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for making them as Dormant . 11. It is also stated that the Registrar of Companies, Kerala had identified 2479 companies for action under Section 248. A verification of the filing position and status of said 2479 defaulting companies including the subject company had been made and it was revealed that the subject company had been in default of filing Balance sheets and Annual Returns since 2016 and had not applied for getting dormant status. Accordingly, notice was issued to the subject company also with other 2479 companies and finally 1928 including the subject company had been proceeded with action under Section 248 which have been found for initiating action under Section 248. 12. It is also stated in the Report that as per provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were due to be filed on or before 30/10/2017 and 30/10/2018 respectively. Similarly, as per Provisions of Section 92 of Companies Act, 2013 Annual Returns for 2017 and 2018 was due for filing on or before 30/11/2017 and 30/11/2018 respectively. It is seen that company is having 3 directors in its Board at the time of strike off viz., (1) Kattithara Pacha Vasu Abraham (2) Reenu Abraham (3) Blessan Abraham., The DIN Numbers of these 3 directors are Deactivated due to non-filing of DIR-3 KYC . 15. Circumstances being so, the ROC stated that the action initiated by the Registrar of Companies for striking off of the name of the subject company was triggered due to negligence and lack of due diligence on the part of the Directors of the Company for not discharging their statutory duties in filing the statutory returns within the due date stipulated under the Companies Act and also for not responding to the several periodical notices within the notice period. Therefore, the action of strike off of the name of the company is fully substantiated within the authority under the Provisions of Section 248 of the Act and deserves the protection of this Tribunal. 16. We have heard the argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Registrar of Companies stating therein that the accounts of the Company were not used as means to transact tainted money during the period of demonetization. iv. The appellant is directed to pay the costs of ₹ 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the accounts of Central Government in favour of the Pay Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Southern Region, Chennai, and proof of payment be handed over to the Registrar of Companies, Kerala within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, while submitting the documents to them, failing which this order will lapse. v. The Company s representative, who has filed the Company Appeal, is directed to personally ensure compliance of this order. vi. Till all compliances are made by the Company, the Company shall not alienate or dispose of any of its valuable assets. vii. On such delivery and after duly complying with the above directions, the Registrar of Companies, Kochi is directed to, on his official name and seal, publish the restoration order in the official gazette. viii. Further, this order allowing the Appeal shall also not circumscribe the power of the respondent to proceed against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
